Yadav Chakravarthy and Gautam Ranjit. / International Journal of Phytopharmacology. 10(3), 2019, 75-80.
International Journal of Phytopharmacology
Research Article
e- ISSN 0975 – 9328
Print ISSN 2229 – 7472
www.onlineijp.com
AN IN-VITRO COMPARATIVE SEM STUDY OF APPLE CIDER
VINEGAR, PALM VINEGAR, POMEGRANATE VINEGAR AND
GRAPE VINEGAR ON THE SMEAR LAYER REMOVAL OF ROOT
CANALS
*Yadav Chakravarthy and **Gautam Ranjit
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Vinayaka Mission’s Sankarachariyar Dental College, Salem, Tamil
Nadu, India.
*Professor and Head of the department, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Vinayaka Mission’s
Sankarachariyar Dental College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India
**Post Graduate Student, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Vinayaka Mission’s Sankarachariyar
Dental College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this in-vitro comparative study was to evaluate and compare in-vitro, by scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) the removal of smear layer at the coronal, middle and apical third of root canals irrigated with four natural vinegars
which are Apple Cider Vinegar, Palm Vinegar, Pomegranate Vinegar and Grape Vinegar. The objective was to investigate
which of the four types of natural vinegars (Apple Cider Vinegar, Palm Vinegar, Pomegranate Vinegar and Grape Vinegar)
could be used as the better alternative to a chemical (Sodium hypochlorite), in the removal of smear layer, when used as a
root canal irrigant. Fifty human maxillary central incisors were instrumented and the final irrigation was performed with
apple cider vinegar, palm vinegar, pomegranate vinegar, grape vinegar and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (control). Smear layer
removal was assessed in the cervical, middle, and apical thirds of each specimen under SEM. There was statistically
significant difference (P < 0.001) between apple cider vinegar and theother solutions with regard to smear layer removal. The
highest amount of smear layer removal was obtained with apple cider vinegar followed by palm vinegar, grape vinegar and
pomegranate vinegar.
Key words: Apple Cider Vinegar, Smear layer removal, Sodium hypochlorite, Scanning Electron.
Corresponding Author Gautam Ranjit Email: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Dentin debris and smear layer (SL) are created
on the root canal walls as a consequence of endodontic
instrumentation. According to the American Association
of Endodontists, SL is defined as a surface film of debris
Access this article online
DOI:
Quick Response code
http://onlineijp.com/
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.21276/ijp.2019.10.3.2
Received:25.02.19
75 | P a g e
Revised:02.03.19
Accepted:13.03.19
retained on dentin or other surfaces after instrumentation
with either rotary or endodontic files, consisting of
remnants of vital or necrotic pulp tissue, dentin particles,
retained irrigant, and bacterial components. It results in
obliteration of dentinal tubules making it difficult to
eliminate microorganisms and compromises the filling of
the root canal systems( Torabinejad et al., 2004).
No irrigating solution used in endodontic
treatment is capable of acting on the organic and
inorganic elements of the smear layer simultaneously.
Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), in concentrations of 0.5%
to 5.25%, is the main endodontic irrigant, but when used
Yadav Chakravarthy and Gautam Ranjit. / International Journal of Phytopharmacology. 10(3), 2019, 75-80.
alone is ineffective in removing the entire smear layer.
(Mc Comb and Smith, 1975; Mader and Baumgartner,
1984; Torabinejad et al., 2002) Chelating agents are used
in endodontics to aid in root canal irrigation and to
remove
the
inorganic
smear
layer.
The
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) at a neutral pH
has been recommended since 1957 and it is the one most
frequently employed for the removal of the smear layer
(Torabinejad et al., 2003).
The cleaning action of irrigants is reduced
toward the apex and is less efficient in the apical region of
the root canal (O’Connell et al.,, 2000; Khedmat and
Shokouhinejad, 2008) This could be attributed to the
narrow dimensions of the apical third, which can prevent
the effective distribution of irrigants, resulting in limited
contact between the canal walls and the solutions.(Ciucchi
et al., 1989)
Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) is one of the most
widely
used
endodontic
irrigants
for
the
chemomechanical preparation of root canals because of
its excellent antimicrobial action and capacity of
dissolving organic materials (Marending et al., 2007),
which increase directly with the increase of the
concentration. However, the optimal organic tissuedissolving property of NaOCl is non-selective, which
means that, especially at high concentrations, this
chemical agent may dissolve both vital and necrotic pulp
remnants indistinguishably and have high toxicity to the
periapical tissues in case of inadvertent extrusion through
the apical foramen to the periradicular space (Kuruvilla
and Kamath, 1998). Another disadvantage of NaOCl is
that it decreases the mechanical resistance of dentin
(Marending et al., 2007) by causing deterioration of
collagen and proteoglycans. There are also reports of
accidents and allergic reactions to the use of NaOCl
during root canal therapy (Pelka M and Petschelt A, 2008;
Pontes et al., 2008). Therefore, research has been done to
find an irrigating solution that may have better
biocompatibility than NaOCl while maintaining its
properties of tissue solving capacity and high bactericidal
action. Vinegar has been indicated as an antiseptic agent
due to its medicinal properties and has been used for the
treatment of infected wounds. Distilled white vinegar and
wine vinegar are composed mainly of acetic acid, whereas
apple vinegar is composed mainly of malic acid, which
has therapeutic properties (Caligiani et al., 2007). More
recently, the use of apple vinegar as an auxiliary solution
in the chemomechanical preparation of root canals has
also been investigated and deserves attention due to the
promising results obtained when compared to traditional
endodontic irrigants, such as NaOCl and EDTA (Costa et
al., 2009).
Other substances have also been suggested to
remove the smear layer, such as citric acid and apple
vinegar (Canderio et al., 2001) Apple vinegar is
composed of 5% acetic acid and 0.35% malic acid
76 | P a g e
(Caligiani et al., 2007) It has good cost-effectiveness and
is a biocompatible substance. Its antimicrobial potential
has already been demonstrated, (Estrala et al., 2004) but
little published data is available regarding its cleaning
ability. Apple vinegar associates a good capacity to
remove smear layer from the dentinal tubule entrances
(Estrala et al., 2007; Zandim et al., 2004) with
bactericidal action against microorganisms that are
frequently associated with endodontic infections, such as
Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis (Estrala
et al., 2005). The high biocompatibility of apple vinegar
is mainly attributed to the high concentration of malic
acid in its composition (Caligiani et al., 2007).
Grape vinegar (pH 2.4), like red wine, is rich in
polyphenols which are powerful antioxidants. The
antioxidants protect the body against the damage done by
free radical molecules. Free radicals have been implicated
in a number of chronic conditions including
cardiovascular disease, cancer and inflammatory
conditions. Pomegranate Vinegar (pH 2.93-3.20) also
contains polyphenols but at higher levels than other fruit
juices and it is the only fruit rich in all three major
antioxidants: tannins, anthocyanins, and ellagic acid.
Coconut vinegar has a pH 4-5 since coconut trees grow in
soil that’s highly rich in nutrients and therefore the “sap”
from the coconut blossoms is also rich in nutrients.
Coconut vinegar is therefore a good source of minerals
and vitamins. (Budak et al., 2014)
The purpose of this study is to evaluate and
compare in-vitro, by scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
the removal of smear layer in the coronal, middle and
apical third of root canals irrigated with Apple Cider
Vinegar, Palm Vinegar, Pomegranate Vinegar and Grape
Vinegar.
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
Fifty freshly extracted permanent human
maxillary central incisors with straight root and
Vertucci’s type 1 root canal anatomy were selected and
superficial soft tissues were removed with a brush and all
the teeth were stored in distilled water. The teeth were
decoronated to standardize root length of 15 mm and the
samples were divided into four experimental groups
(n=10) and a control group (n=10).
The working length was established by inserting
a number 10 K file (Mani Inc.) into each root canal until it
was visible at the apical foramen and by subtracting 1mm
from this point. Chemomechanical preparation was
performed in each tooth using a combination of passive
step-back and rotary 0.06 taper nickel titanium files
(Dentsply Protaper). The apical foramen of each tooth
was enlarged to a size 30K-file. Irrigation was performed
with 1ml of 2.5 % sodium hypochlorite solution after
enlarging the canal up to a size 30 K-file and further the
specimens were divided into five groups. Final irrigation
for each group was done using 5ml of each of
Yadav Chakravarthy and Gautam Ranjit. / International Journal of Phytopharmacology. 10(3), 2019, 75-80.
the vinegars (Apple Cider Vinegar, Palm Vinegar,
Pomegranate Vinegar and Grape Vinegar) respectively
followed by 3ml of distilled water.
After irrigation all the root canals were dried
with absorbent paper points and a sterile cotton pellet was
placed in the access cavity. Longitudinal grooves were
prepared on buccal and lingual surfaces of each root using
a diamond disc at a slow speed without penetrating the
canal. The roots were then split into two halves using a
chisel and stored in distilled water at 37̊ C.
The specimens were dehydrated in a graded
series of ethanol solutions, gold sputtered using an ion
sputter and immediately examined under scanning
electron microscope for the presence or absence of smear
layer. Photomicrographs were made at ×1000
magnification randomly at coronal, middle and apical
from the thirds of each specimen. Each field was scored
according to the following criteria given by Rome et al., :
Score 0 = No smear layer, dentinal tubules open, free of
debris.
Score 1 = Root canal surface covered with residue only at
the opening of the dentinal tubules.
Score 2 = Root canal surfaces with a thin covering of
residue on dentinal tubules with visible tubules only in a
few regions.
Score 3 = Heavy smear layer, outlines of dentinal tubules
totally covered with smear layer.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The results obtained were used to compare the
smear layer removal between the four different groups by
ANOVA (Analysis of variance) test followed by TukeyKramer multiple comparison test. A p-value less than 0.05
was considered as significant.
RESULT
Removal of smear layer from the surfaces of root
canals revealed the presence of more abundant and larger
dentinal tubules in the coronal third of root canals
compared with those seen in the middle and apical thirds
of the root canal system. The dentinal tubules in the apical
third of the canals were smaller and fewer than those
observed in the rest of the root canals. The greatest
amount of smear layer removal was seen by irrigation
with apple cider vinegar followed by palm vinegar,
pomegranate vinegar and grape vinegar with a p-value =
0.001 which was considered highly significant. Among
the coronal, middle and apical third of Group I (ACV), no
statistical significance was seen with p-value = 0.329.
Table 1. Showing the scores regarding presence of smear layer in coronal third after irrigation with different solutions
Smear layer
Thin
Root canal surface covered with
smear
Heavy
Chi
residue only at the opening of the
layer on smear Total
Coronal
p
square
dentinal tubules
dentinal
layer
tubules
N
%
N % N %
Apple Cider Vinegar
9
90
1
10
10
Palm Vinegar
1
10
9
90
-
-
10
Pomegranate Vinegar
-
-
1
10
9
90
10
Grape Vinegar
-
-
8
80
2
20
10
2.5 Sodium Hypochlorite
-
-
2
20
8
80
10
10
20
21
42
19
38
50
Total
66.13
0.001**
Table 2. Showing the scores regarding presence of smear layer in middle third after irrigation with different solutions
Smear layer
Thin smear
Root canal surface covered with
Heavy
layer on
Chi
Middle
residue only at the opening of the
smear
Total
p
dentinal
square
dentinal tubules
layer
tubules
N
%
N
%
N
%
Apple Cider Vinegar
10
100
10
Palm Vinegar
8
80
2
20
10
Pomegranate Vinegar
4
40
6
60
10
66.75 0.001**
Grape Vinegar
9
90
1
10
10
2.5 Sodium
2
20
8
80
10
77 | P a g e
Yadav Chakravarthy and Gautam Ranjit. / International Journal of Phytopharmacology. 10(3), 2019, 75-80.
Hypochlorite
Total
10
20
23
46
17
34
50
Table 3. Showing the scores regarding presence of smear layer in apical third after irrigation with different solutions
Smear layer
Thin smear
Root canal surface covered with
Heavy
layer on
Chi
Apical
residue only at the opening of the
smear
Total
p
dentinal
square
dentinal tubules
layer
tubules
N
%
N
%
N
%
Apple Cider Vinegar
8
80
2
20
10
Palm Vinegar
4
40
6
60
10
Pomegranate Vinegar
3
30
7
70
10
41.88
0.001**
Grape Vinegar
1
10
8
80
1
10
10
2.5 Sodium
3
30
7
70
10
Hypochlorite
Total
13
26
22
44
15 30
50
Fig 1. Smear layer present only at dentinal tubule
openings after irrigation with Apple cider vinegar
Fig 2. SEM MICROGRAPHS SCORE 1=Root canal
surface covered with residue only at dentinal tubule
openings.
Fig 3. SEM MICROGRAPHS SCORE 2=Moderate
smear layer. No smear layer was observed on surface of
root canal but tubules contained debris.
Fig 4. SEM MICROGRAPHS SCORE 3= Heavy smear
layer. Smear layer covered the root canal surface and
tubules.
78 | P a g e
Yadav Chakravarthy and Gautam Ranjit. / International Journal of Phytopharmacology. 10(3), 2019, 75-80.
DISCUSSION
The main goals of the chemomechanical
preparation are to eliminate bacteria and their byproducts
from the root canal system, remove pulp tissue remnants
and contaminated organic and inorganic debris that are
formed during instrumentation and compacted into the
dentin tubules and produce a continuously tapered shape
in the crown-apex direction to allow effective irrigation
and three-dimensional obturation of the canal space.
Chemical endodontic irrigants must have some important
properties such as biocompatibility, dissolution of organic
tissues, bactericidal action and capacity to remove smear
layer from the canal walls. Different solutions, such as
NaOCl at several concentrations, chlorhexidine and more
recently apple vinegar, have been used as endodontic
irrigants. (Canderio et al., 2010)
The biocompatibility of apple vinegar is
attributed to the presence in its composition of malic acid
(Caligiani et al., 2007), which has therapeutic properties.
It increases the organism resistance because it is one of
the acids of the Krebs cycle, which is a set of reactions
responsible for production of energy in the cells. In
addition, apple vinegar has a remarkable medicinal
potential due to its high mineral content (potassium,
phosphorus, magnesium, sulfur, calcium, fluoride and
silicon), and contains other elements, such as pectin, betacarotene, enzymes and amino acids, which attack free
radicals that affect the immune system (Estrala et al.,
2005) and may have some beneficial role in the periapical
repair process. Therefore, it may be assumed that apple
vinegar has some antiinflammatory activity, which is an
important characteristic for an endodontic irrigating
solution. In addition to the biocompatibility, it has been
demonstrated that apple vinegar has bactericidal activity
against E. faecalis (Estrala et al., 2005), which is one of
the main microorganisms associated with endodontic
treatment failure.
Failure to remove smear layer from the root
canal walls is considered as one of the main reasons of
endodontic therapy failure (De-Deus et al., 2002).
Removal of the smear layer can allow intracanal
medicaments to penetrate the dentin tubules in infected
root canals more readily and consequently cause a better
disinfection procedure. The lack of adherence between the
filling material and the smear-covered canal walls
compromise the apical seal, which may result in apical
leakage, favoring the survival and multiplication of
bacteria that were not eliminated during the
chemomechanical preparation. (De-Deus et al., 2002;
Farhad A and Elahi T, 2004).
Kirchhoff et al., in 2010, compared and assessed
the smear layer and calcium ion removal from the root
canal using apple vinegar and other chelating solutions.
They observed that the higher the concentration of H+
ions, the more efficient the attack of the acid would be.
The concentration of H+ ions present in the medium is the
result of the dissociation constant (Ka). Because the acetic
acid is a weak acid, whose Ka is 1.8 × 10-5; that is, an acid
that is little dissociated, it does not have a concentration
of H+ ions that could produce an efficient calcium
removal. The larger quantity of calcium ions detected in
the malic acid solution is also due to the action of H+
ions. Because the malic acid is a diprotic acid, it has two
dissociation constants, Ka1 = 3.5 × 10-4 and Ka2 = 8.0 × 106
. Ka1 in fact determines the degree of acid dissociation,
since the second constant is much smaller (Harris GB,
2001). Since the Ka1 of malic acid is higher than the Ka of
acetic acid, the malic acid dissociates more strongly, with
a higher concentration of H+ ions, promoting removal of
calcium ions more intensely.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results obtained and taking into
account the limitations of this study, it could be concluded
that among the solutions assessed, Apple cider vinegar
promoted greater cleaning of the root canal walls and
removing a larger quantity of calcium ions compared to
the rest. Further studies must be conducted, varying the
concentrations and pH of the solutions which may lead to
formulating a solution with active agents that favor
effective smear layer removal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND FUNDING
The authors thank Alpha-Omega Hi-Tech Bio
Research Center, Salem for its assistance in this research.
This project was supported and funded by the authors.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No interest
REFERENCES
Caligiani A, Acquotti D, Palla G, Bocchi V. Identi!cation and quanti!cation of the main organic components of vinegars by
high resolution 1H NMR spectroscopy. Anal Chim Acta, 585(1), 2007, 110-119.
Caligiani A, Acquotti D, Palla G, Bocchi V. Identification and quantification of the main organic components of vinegars by
high resolution 1H NMR spectroscopy. Anal Chim Act, 585, 2007, 110-9.
Candeiro GTM, Matos IB, Costa CFE, Fonteles CSR, Vale MS. A comparative scanning electron microscopy evaluation of
smear layer removal with apple vinegar and sodium hypochlorite associated with EDTA. J Appl Oral Sci, 19(6),
2001, 639-643.
Canderio, Matos C et al.,. A Comparative Scanning Electron Microscopy evaluation of smear layer removal with apple
vinegar and sodium hypochlorite associated with EDTA. Journal of Applied Oral Sciences, 19(6), 2011, 639-643.
79 | P a g e
Yadav Chakravarthy and Gautam Ranjit. / International Journal of Phytopharmacology. 10(3), 2019, 75-80.
Ciucchi B, Khettabi M, Holz J. The effectiveness of different endodontic irrigation procedures on the removal of the smear
layer: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J, 22(1), 1989, 21-8.
Costa D, Dalmina F, Irala LED. The use of the vinegar as a chemical auxiliary in endodontics: a literature review. Rev SulBras Odontol, 6, 2009, 185-93.
De-Deus G, Gurgel-Filho ED, Ferreira CM, Coutinho-Filho T. Intratubular penetration of root canal sealers. Pesqui Odontol
Bras, 16, 2002, 332-336.
Estrela C, Estrela CRA, Decurcio DA, Silva JA, Bammann LL. Antimicrobial potential of ozone in an ultrasonic cleaning
system against Staphylococcus aureus. Braz Dent J, 17, 2006, 134-138.
Estrela C, Holland R, Bernabé PFE, Souza V, Estrela CRA. Antimicrobial potential of medicaments used in healing process
in dog´s teeth with apical periodontitis. Braz Dent J, 15(3), 2004, 181-185.
Estrela C, Lopes HP, Elias CN, Leles CR, Pécora JD. Cleanliness of the surface of the root canal of apple vinegar, sodium
hypochlorite, chlorhexidine and EDTA. Rev Assoc Paul Cir Dent, 61, 2007, 177-82.
Estrela CR, Estrela C, Cruz Filho AM, Pécora JD. ESP substance: option in endodontic therapy. J Bras Endod. 2005;5, 2005,
273-279.
Farhad A, Elahi T. The effect of smear layer on apical seal of endodontically treated teeth. J Res Med Sci, 9, 2004, 130-3.
Harris GB. Analytical profiles of drug substances and excipients. Analyt Chim Acta, 28, 2001, 153-95.
Hülsmann M, Heckendorff M, Lennon A. Chelating agents in root canal treatment: mode of action and indications for their
use. Int Endod J, 36(12), 2003, 810-30.
Irala, Soares, Barbosa et al.,. Capacity to remove smear layer of dentin of root canal after using vinegar of alcohol and apple vinegar
as irrigants during endodontic therapy. STOMATOS (Brazil), 15(28), 2017, 48-57.
Khedmat S, Shokouhinejad N. Comparison of the ef!cacy of three chelating agents in smear layer removal. J Endod, 34(5),
2008, 599-602.
Kirchoff, Viapiana, Miranda et al.,. Comparison of the apple vinegar with other chelating solutions on smear layer and
calcium ions removal from the root canal. IJDR, 25(3), 2014, 370-374.
Kuruvilla JR, Kamath MP. Antimicrobial activity of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate separately
and combined as irrigants. J Endod, 24, 1998, 472-476.
Mader CL, Baumgartner JC, Peters DD. Scanning electron microscope investigation of the smeared layer on root canal walls.
J Endod, 10(10), 1984, 477-483.
Marending M, Paqué F, Fisher J, Zehnder M. Impact of irrigant sequence mechanical properties of human root dentin. J
Endod, 33, 2007, 1325-1328.
McComb D, Smith DC. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J
Endod, 1(7), 1975, 238-242.
O’Connell MS, Morgan LA, Beeler WJ, Baumgartner JC. A comparative study of smear layer removal using different salts
of EDTA. J Endod, 26(12), 2000, 739-743.
Palaniswamy, Kaushik, Surender et al.,. A SEM evaluation of smear layer removal using two rotary systems with EDTA and
vinegar as root canal irrigant.JORD, 4(1), 2016, 17-21.
Pelka M, Petschelt A. Permanent mimic musculature and nerve damage caused by sodium hypochlorite: a case report. Oral
Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 106, 2008, 80-83.
Pontes F, Pontes H, Adachi P, Rodini C, Almeida D, Pinto D Jr. Gingival and bone necrosis caused by accidental sodium
hypochlorite injection instead of anaesthetic solution. Int Endod J, 41, 2008, 267-270.
Rodrigues, Bernardineli, Duarte et al.,.Evaluation of EDTA, apple vinegar and SmearClearwith and without ultrasonic
activation on smear layer removal in different root canal levels. DPE, 3(1), 2013, 43-48.
Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, Bakland LK. Clinical implications of the smear layer in Endodontics: a review.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 94(6), 2002, 658-666.
Torabinejad M, Hanysides R, Khademi AA, Bakland LK. Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: A review.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 94, 2002, 658-666.
Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, Cho Y, Johnson WB, Bozhilov K, et al.,. A new solution for the removal of the
smear layer. J Endod, 29(3), 2003, 170-5.
Zandim DL, Corrêa FOB, Sampaio JEC, Rossa Júnior C. The influence of vinegars on exposure of dentinal tubules: a SEM
evaluation. Braz Oral Res, 18, 2004, 63-68.
80 | P a g e